Advertisement

Does incidental sequence learning allow us to better manage upcoming conflicting events?

  • Luis JiménezEmail author
  • Elger Abrahamse
  • Cástor Méndez
  • Senne Braem
Original Article
  • 5 Downloads

Abstract

Recent proposals emphasize the role of learning in empirical markers of conflict adaptation. Some of these proposals are rooted in the assumption that contingency learning works not only on stimulus–response events but also on covert processes such as selective attention. In the present study, we explored how these learning processes may apply to trial-to-trial modulations of selective attention, mirroring the sequential nature of congruency sequence effects. Two groups of participants performed a four-choice Stroop task in which the color to which they responded on each trial acted as a probabilistic predictor either of the external response to be emitted on the next trial, or the congruency level (and therefore control demands) on the next trial. The results showed clear effects of sequence learning for external responses, but no evidence of learning about sequential stimulus–conflict associations. The implications of these results are discussed in relation to other learning-based phenomena of conflict adaptation and suggest that learning of stimulus–control associations is strongly constrained by event boundaries.

Notes

Funding

The present research was funded by the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad with a research Grant to Luis Jiménez (PSI2015-70990-P).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in the study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study

References

  1. Abrahamse, E., Braem, S., Notebaert, W., & Verguts, T. (2016). Grounding cognitive control in associative learning. Psychological Bulletin, 142(7), 693–728.  https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000047.Google Scholar
  2. Abrahamse, E. L., Jiménez, L., Verwey, W. B., & Clegg, B. A. (2010). Representing serial action and perception. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(5), 603–623.  https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.5.603.Google Scholar
  3. Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 624–652.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.624.Google Scholar
  4. Bugg, J. M., & Smallwood, A. (2016). The next trial will be conflicting! Effects of explicit congruency pre-cues on cognitive control. Psychological Research, 80(1), 16–33.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0638-5.Google Scholar
  5. Cañadas, E., Rodríguez-Bailón, R., Milliken, B., & Lupiáñez, J. (2013). Social categories as a context for the allocation of attentional control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(3), 934–943.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029794.Google Scholar
  6. Crump, M. J. C., Brosowsky, N. P., & Milliken, B. (2017). Reproducing the location-based context-specific proportion congruent effect for frequency unbiased items: A reply to Hutcheon and Spieler (2016). The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(9), 1792–1807.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1206130.Google Scholar
  7. Crump, M. J. C., Gong, Z., & Milliken, B. (2006). The context-specific proportion congruent Stroop effect: Location as a contextual cue. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(2), 316–321.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193850.Google Scholar
  8. Crump, M. J. C., & Milliken, B. (2009). The flexibility of context-specific control: Evidence for context-driven generalization of item-specific control settings. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1523–1532.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902752096.Google Scholar
  9. D’Angelo, M. C., Jiménez, L., Milliken, B., & Lupiáñez, J. (2013). On the specificity of sequential congruency effects in implicit learning of motor and perceptual sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(1), 69–84.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028474.Google Scholar
  10. Deroost, N., & Soetens, E. (2006). Perceptual or motor learning in SRT tasks with complex sequence structures. Psychological Research, 70(2), 88–102.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-004-0196-3.Google Scholar
  11. Deroost, N., Vandenbossche, J., Zeischka, P., Coomans, D., & Soetens, E. (2012). Cognitive control: A role for implicit learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(5), 1243–1258.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027633.Google Scholar
  12. Egner, T. (2014). Creatures of habit (and control): A multi-level learning perspective on the modulation of congruency effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1247.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01247.Google Scholar
  13. Egner, T. (2017). Conflict adaptation: Past, present, and future of the congruency sequence effect as an index of cognitive control. In T. Egner (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of cognitive control (pp. 64–78). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118920497.ch4.Google Scholar
  14. Ezzyat, Y., & Davachi, L. (2011). What constitutes an episode in episodic memory? Psychological Science, 22(2), 243–252.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610393742.Google Scholar
  15. Farrell, S. (2012). Temporal clustering and sequencing in short-term memory and episodic memory. Psychological Review, 119(2), 223–271.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027371.Google Scholar
  16. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.Google Scholar
  17. Frank, M. J., Loughry, B., & O’Reilly, R. C. (2001). Interactions between frontal cortex and basal ganglia in working memory: A computational model. Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 1(2), 137–160.  https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.1.2.137.Google Scholar
  18. Ghinescu, R., Schachtman, T. R., Stadler, M. A., Fabiani, M., & Gratton, G. (2010). Strategic behavior without awareness? Effects of implicit learning in the Eriksen flanker paradigm. Memory & Cognition, 38(2), 197–205.  https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.2.197.Google Scholar
  19. Gratton, G., Coles, M. G. H., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121(4), 480–506.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.121.4.480.Google Scholar
  20. Howard, J. H., Mutter, S. A., & Howard, D. V. (1992). Serial pattern learning by event observation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(5), 1029–1039.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.18.5.1029.Google Scholar
  21. Inquisit 4 [Computer Software]. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.millisecond.com. Accessed 2 Mar 2016.
  22. Jacoby, L. L., Lindsay, D. S., & Hessels, S. (2003). Item-specific control of automatic processes: Stroop process dissociations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(3), 638–644.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196526.Google Scholar
  23. JASP (Version 0.9) [Computer Software]. (2018). https://jasp-stats.org/. Accessed 6 Dec 2018.
  24. Jiménez, L., Lupiáñez, J., & Vaquero, J. M. M. (2009). Sequential congruency effects in implicit sequence learning. Consciousness and Cognition, 18(3), 690–700.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2009.04.006.Google Scholar
  25. Jiménez, L., & Méndez, A. (2013). It is not what you expect: Dissociating conflict adaptation from expectancies in a stroop task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(1), 271–284.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027734.Google Scholar
  26. Jiménez, L., & Méndez, A. (2014). Even with time, conflict adaptation is not made of expectancies. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1042.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01042.Google Scholar
  27. Koch, I. (2001). Automatic and intentional activation of task sets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.27.6.1474.Google Scholar
  28. Koch, I. (2005). Sequential task predictability in task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196354.Google Scholar
  29. Koch, I. (2007). Anticipatory response control in motor sequence learning: Evidence from stimulus–response compatibility. Human Movement Science, 26(2), 257–274.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2007.01.004.Google Scholar
  30. Kurby, C. A., & Zacks, J. M. (2008). Segmentation in the perception and memory of events. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(2), 72–79.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.334.Google Scholar
  31. Logan, G. D., & Zbrodoff, N. J. (1979). When it helps to be misled: Facilitative effects of increasing the frequency of conflicting stimuli in a Stroop-like task. Memory & Cognition, 7(3), 166–174.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197535.Google Scholar
  32. MacLeod, C. M. (1992). The Stroop task: The “gold standard” of attentional measures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121(1), 12–14.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.121.1.12.Google Scholar
  33. Mayr, U. (1996). Spatial attention and implicit sequence learning: Evidence for independent learning of spatial and nonspatial sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(2), 350–364.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.22.2.350.Google Scholar
  34. Mayr, U., Awh, E., & Laurey, P. (2003). Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 450–452.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1051.Google Scholar
  35. Nissen, M. J., & Bullemer, P. (1987). Attentional requirements of learning: Evidence from performance measures. Cognitive Psychology, 19(1), 1–32.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(87)90002-8.Google Scholar
  36. Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. In R. J. Davidson, G. E. Schwartz, & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and self-regulation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 4, pp. 1–18). New York: Plenum Press.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-0629-1_1.Google Scholar
  37. Notebaert, W., Gevers, W., Verbruggen, F., & Liefooghe, B. (2006). Top-down and bottom-up sequential modulations of congruency effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(1), 112–117.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193821.Google Scholar
  38. Remillard, G. (2003). Pure perceptual-based sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(4), 581–597.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.29.4.581.Google Scholar
  39. Scherbaum, S., Fischer, R., Dshemuchadse, M., & Goschke, T. (2011). The dynamics of cognitive control: Evidence for within-trial conflict adaptation from frequency-tagged EEG. Psychophysiology, 48(5), 591–600.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2010.01137.x.Google Scholar
  40. Schmidt, J. R. (2013). Questioning conflict adaptation: Proportion congruent and Gratton effects reconsidered. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(4), 615–630.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0373-0.Google Scholar
  41. Schmidt, J. R. (2018). Evidence against conflict monitoring and adaptation: An updated review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1520-z.Google Scholar
  42. Schmidt, J. R., De Houwer, J., & Rothermund, K. (2016). The parallel episodic processing (PEP) model 2.0: A single computational model of stimulus-response binding, contingency learning, power curves, and mixing costs. Cognitive Psychology, 91, 82–108.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2016.10.004.Google Scholar
  43. Schmidtke, V., & Heuer, H. (1997). Task integration as a factor in secondary-task effects on sequence learning. Psychological Research, 60(1–2), 53–71.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00419680.Google Scholar
  44. Shanks, D. R., Wilkinson, L., & Channon, S. (2003). Relationship between priming and recognition in deterministic and probabilistic sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(2), 248–261.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.29.2.248.Google Scholar
  45. Shin, J. C., Aparicio, P., & Ivry, R. B. (2005). Multidimensional sequence learning in patients with focal basal ganglia lesions. Brain and Cognition, 58(1), 75–83.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2004.09.015.Google Scholar
  46. Song, S., Howard, J. H., & Howard, D. V. (2008). Perceptual sequence learning in a serial reaction time task. Experimental Brain Research, 189(2), 145–158.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-008-1411-z.Google Scholar
  47. Spapé, M. M., & Hommel, B. (2008). He said, she said: Episodic retrieval induces conflict adaptation in an auditory Stroop task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(6), 1117–1121.  https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.6.1117.Google Scholar
  48. Spapé, M. M., & Hommel, B. (2014). Sequential modulations of the Simon effect depend on episodic retrieval. Frontiers in Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00855.Google Scholar
  49. Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643–662.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054651.Google Scholar
  50. Vaquero, J. M. M., Jiménez, L., & Lupiáñez, J. (2006). The problem of reversals in assessing implicit sequence learning with serial reaction time tasks. Experimental Brain Research, 175(1), 97–109.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-006-0523-6.Google Scholar
  51. Verbruggen, F., McLaren, I. P. L., & Chambers, C. D. (2014). Banishing the control homunculi in studies of action control and behavior change. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(5), 497–524.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614526414.Google Scholar
  52. Verguts, T., & Notebaert, W. (2008). Hebbian learning of cognitive control: Dealing with specific and nonspecific adaptation. Psychological Review, 115(2), 518–525.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.518.Google Scholar
  53. Verguts, T., & Notebaert, W. (2009). Adaptation by binding: A learning account of cognitive control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(6), 252–257.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.02.007.Google Scholar
  54. Weissman, D. H., Hawks, Z. W., & Egner, T. (2016). Different levels of learning interact to shape the congruency sequence effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(4), 566–583.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000182.Google Scholar
  55. Wühr, P., & Kunde, W. (2008). Precueing spatial SR correspondence: Is there regulation of expected response conflict? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(4), 872–883.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.34.4.872.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidad de Santiago de CompostelaSantiago de CompostelaSpain
  2. 2.Basque Center on Cognition, Brain, and LanguageBilbaoSpain
  3. 3.IKERBASQUE, Basque Foundation for ScienceBilbaoSpain
  4. 4.Vrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations